This opinion is subject to
further editing and modification.The
final version will appear in the bound volume of the official reports.

No. 2011AP1663-D

STATE OF WISCONSIN:

IN SUPREME COURT

In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings

Against Gerald D. Stange, Attorney at Law:

Office of Lawyer Regulation,

Complainant,

v.

Gerald D. Stange,

Respondent.

FILED

JUN 27, 2012

Diane M. Fremgen

Clerk of Supreme Court

ATTORNEY disciplinary proceeding.Attorney's
license revoked.

¶1PER CURIAM. This case is before us under
SCR 22.14(2)[1]
and SCR 22.17(2)[2]
on a stipulation between the parties, Attorney Gerald D. Stange and the Office
of Lawyer Regulation (OLR).In the
stipulation, Attorney Stange pled no contest to all 54 counts of misconduct
alleged in the OLR's complaint involving a variety of client matters.Attorney Stange reserved his right to be
heard on the matter of sanctions.After
holding a hearing on sanctions and receiving post-hearing briefs, the referee
issued a report recommending that the court revoke Attorney Stange's license,
order Attorney Stange to pay restitution in the amount of $200,544.38 before
interest ($152,652.12 of which is owed to the Wisconsin Lawyers' Fund for
Client Protection), and order Attorney Stange to pay the full costs of this
proceeding, which total $13,202.44 as of May 9, 2012.

¶2We approve the stipulation and adopt the stipulated findings of
fact and conclusions of law.We agree
with the referee's conclusion that Attorney Stange's professional misconduct
warrants the revocation of Attorney Stange's Wisconsin law license.We further order that Attorney Stange make
restitution to various clients and the Wisconsin Lawyers' Fund for Client
Protection (the Fund) as outlined below, and that he pay the full costs of this
disciplinary proceeding.

¶3Attorney Stange was admitted to practice law in Wisconsin in
1977.His disciplinary history consists
of a private reprimand imposed in 1997 for failing over extended periods of
time to obtain, complete, and file required documentation to complete three estates
with reasonable diligence and promptness.Private Reprimand No. 1997-1.

¶4On July 21, 2011, the OLR filed a complaint against Attorney
Stange consisting of some 350 separately numbered paragraphs describing 54
counts of misconduct in connection with Attorney Stange's work on over 20 trust
and estate matters.Attorney Stange
filed an answer to the OLR's complaint in which he generally denied most of the
54 counts of misconduct alleged in the complaint.Before the scheduled hearing on the
complaint, Attorney Stange entered into the stipulation now before the court,
in which he withdrew his answer and pled no contest to all 54 counts.

¶5The referee, Robert E. Kinney, accepted all of the factual
allegations of the complaint as his findings of fact. Based on those facts, the referee concluded
that Attorney Stange had engaged in 54 separate acts of professional
misconduct.

¶6Given the volume of the factual findings and legal conclusions
made by the referee, we do not repeat them all here.It is sufficient to provide the following
summary information concerning the serious misconduct at issue in this
matter.

¶8The stipulation provided and the referee concluded that, contrary
to SCR 20:1.15(f)(1)a.4[4]
and SCR 20:1:15(f)(1)g.,[5]
Attorney Stange failed to keep complete and accurate trust account records
during his work on the Estate of J.W. (Count 5).

¶10The stipulation provided and the referee concluded that, contrary
to SCR 20:1.15(b)(3),[8]
Attorney Stange improperly retained funds in his trust account during his work
on the Estate of M.E. (Count 18).

¶11The stipulation provided and the referee concluded that, contrary
to SCR 20:1.15(d)(2),[9]
Attorney Stange failed to provide a full written accounting in the Estate of
R.G. (Count 23).

¶12The stipulation provided and the referee concluded that, contrary
to SCR 20:3.3(a)(1)[10]
as in effect in 2006, Attorney Stange knowingly made false statements to a
tribunal during his work on the estates of B.L. (Count 14) and F.Z. (Count 26).

¶13The stipulation provided and the referee concluded that, contrary
to SCR 20:3.3(a)(1),[11]
effective July 1, 2007, Attorney Stange knowingly made false statements to a
tribunal during his work on the Estate of A.H. (Count 31).

¶14The stipulation provided and the referee concluded that, contrary
to SCR 20:3.4(c)[12]
and SCR 20:1.16(d),[13]
Attorney Stange knowingly disobeyed a court order and failed to take steps
reasonably practical to protect a client's interests during his work on the
Estate of D.B. (Count 44).

¶16The stipulation provided and the referee concluded that, contrary
to SCR 20:8.4(c), by writing trust account checks to himself totaling
$71,161.56 for which no client was identified, thereby creating shortfalls in
the funds available to pay clients and third parties the amounts they were
entitled to receive, Attorney Stange misappropriated client funds from his
trust account and thereby engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud,
deceit, or misrepresentation (Count 54).

¶17The stipulation provided and the referee concluded that, contrary
to SCR 22.03(2)[15]
and SCR 20:8.4(h),[16]
Attorney Stange failed to fully and fairly disclose to the OLR all facts and
circumstances pertaining to alleged misconduct during his work on the Estate of
J.W., and failed to cooperate in the OLR's investigation into that work (Count
2).

¶18The stipulation provided and the referee concluded that, contrary
to SCR 22.03(6),[17]
Attorney Stange willfully failed to provide relevant information, fully answer
questions, or furnish documents in the course of the OLR's investigation into
his work on the Estate of D.B. (Count 42).

¶19The stipulation provided and the referee concluded that, contrary
to SCR 22.03(6) and SCR 20:8.4(h), Attorney Stange failed to cooperate with, and
willfully failed to provide relevant information, fully answer questions, or
furnish documents in the course of, the OLR's investigation into his work on
the estates of J.W. (Count 3), B.L. (Count 17), R.G. (Count 25), and A.H.
(Count 32), and the OLR's investigation into his handling of trust account
funds on behalf of A.S. (Count 46) and M.P. (Count 50).

¶20Finally, the stipulation provided and the referee concluded that,
contrary to SCR 20:1.15(e)(7),[18]
Attorney Stange failed to produce trust account records during the OLR's
investigation into his work on the Estate of J.W. (Count 4).

¶21Because Attorney Stange pled no contest to the above counts of
misconduct, the only disputed issue for the referee to decide was the level of
discipline to be imposed. Counsel for
the OLR argued for revocation with an order for payment of full restitution and
all costs; Attorney Stange argued for a two-year suspension with restitution.

¶22The referee agreed with the OLR's recommendation.In his report, the referee recommended revocation
with an order for payment of full restitution, totaling $200,544.38 before
interest.Of that amount, the referee
determined that $152,652.12 is owed to the Fund as reimbursement for payments
the Fund made to Attorney Stange's victims.The referee further recommended the imposition of full costs, which
total $13,202.44 as of May 9, 2012.

¶23In reaching this recommendation, the referee noted, among other
things, Attorney Stange's repeated lack of candor with courts, clients, estate
beneficiaries, and his fellow attorneys; the significant delays caused by
Attorney Stange's late, incomplete, and inconsistent responses to the OLR; the
particular vulnerability of many of Attorney Stange's clients and their
beneficiaries, including charitable organizations; Attorney Stange's indifference
to making his victims whole; and the similarity between the misconduct involved
in this case and that involved in Attorney Stange's 1997 private reprimand for
failing to timely prepare and file required documentation in several estate
proceedings.The referee also noted that
although Attorney Stange's decision to plead no contest to all charges
eliminated the need for a lengthy and difficult hearing, there was little doubt
of what the outcome of such a hearing would have been given the vast
documentary evidence of misconduct assembled by the OLR.The referee also noted that Attorney Stange's
excuses for his conduct——the
time and financial stresses of his solo practice and his mother's medical
problems——were not
sufficiently unique or compelling as to constitute mitigating factors.Finally, the referee noted that there appears
to be no other disciplinary case with misconduct this severe that did not
result in license revocation.

¶24Because no appeal was filed from the referee's report and
recommendation, our review proceeds pursuant to SCR 22.17(2).When reviewing a report and recommendation in
an attorney disciplinary proceeding, we affirm a referee's findings of fact
unless they are found to be clearly erroneous.In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Inglimo, 2007 WI 126, ¶5,
305 Wis.2d71, 740 N.W.2d125.We review the referee's conclusions of law,
however, on a de novo basis.Id.Finally, we determine the appropriate
level of discipline given the particular facts of each case, independent of the
referee's recommendation, but benefiting from it.In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against
Widule, 2003 WI 34, ¶44, 261 Wis.2d45, 660 N.W.2d686.

¶25We adopt the findings of fact and conclusions of law to which the
parties have stipulated, and as adopted by the referee.We agree with the referee that Attorney
Stange's misconduct warrants the revocation of his Wisconsin law license.Attorney Stange's mishandling of client
matters, his misappropriation of client funds, his pattern of dishonesty, and
his failure to fully and forthrightly cooperate with the OLR demonstrate that he
does not appreciate the obligations that apply to an individual who has been
granted a Wisconsin law license.By his
deceitful, dishonest, and unprofessional conduct, Attorney Stange has forfeited
the privilege of practicing law in this state.

¶26Because this case presents no extraordinary circumstances, we
further determine that Attorney Stange should be required to pay the full costs
of this matter.See SCR 22.24(1m)
(supreme court's general policy upon a finding of misconduct is to impose all
costs upon the respondent attorney).

¶27Finally, we turn to the issue of restitution.The OLR seeks restitution in specific amounts
for sums that the Fund paid to certain injured clients and for other sums that
Attorney Stange misappropriated from other specified clients.Attorney Stange had multiple opportunities to
object to the restitution amounts before both the referee and this court.He has not done so.Consequently, we determine that Attorney Stange
should be ordered to pay restitution to the entities and in the amounts requested
by the OLR and as set forth below.

¶28IT IS ORDERED that the license of Gerald D. Stange to practice law
in Wisconsin is revoked, effective as of the date of this order.

¶29IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Gerald D. Stange shall comply with the
provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of a person whose license to
practice law in Wisconsin has been revoked.

¶30IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date of this order
Gerald D. Stange shall pay restitution plus interest at the legal rate.See Wis. Stat. § 138.04.Restitution shall be paid as follows:

·$152,652.12 plus interest to the Wisconsin
Lawyers' Fund for Client Protection ($102,652.12 regarding the Estate of L.K., plus
interest from December 11, 2006; $50,000.00 regarding the Estate of D.B., plus
interest from December 21, 2007);

·$26,653.65 plus interest from July 23, 2001, to
the Estate of M.I.;

·$1,472.50 plus interest from June 14, 2006, to
the Estate of H.M.;

·$14,943.98[19]
plus interest from March 2, 2006, to the Estate of A.H.; and

·$4,822.13 plus interest from July 3, 2007, to
the Estate of U.P.

¶31IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date of this
order, Gerald D. Stange shall pay to the Office of Lawyer Regulation the imposed
costs of this proceeding.

¶32IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the restitution specified above is to be
completed prior to paying costs to the Office of Lawyer Regulation.

The
respondent may by answer plead no contest to allegations of misconduct in the
complaint. The referee shall make a
determination of misconduct in respect to each allegation to which no contest
is pleaded and for which the referee finds an adequate factual basis in the
record.In a subsequent disciplinary or
reinstatement proceeding, it shall be conclusively presumed that the respondent
engaged in the misconduct determined on the basis of a no contest plea.

If no
appeal is filed timely, the supreme court shall review the referee's report;
adopt, reject or modify the referee's findings and conclusions or remand the
matter to the referee for additional findings; and determine and impose
appropriate discipline.The court, on
its own motion, may order the parties to file briefs in the matter.

[4] SCR
20:1.15(f)(1)a.4 provides:"The
transaction register shall contain a chronological record of all account
transactions, and shall include all of the following:4. the identity of the client for whom funds
were deposited or disbursed."

For
each trust account, the lawyer shall prepare and retain a printed
reconciliation report on a regular and periodic basis not less frequently than
every 30 days. Each reconciliation report
shall show all of the following balances and verify that they are identical:

1. the
balance that appears in the transaction register as of the reporting date;

2. the
total of all subsidiary ledger balances for IOLTA accounts and other pooled
accounts, determined by listing and totaling the balances in the individual
client ledgers and the ledger for account fees and charges, as of the reporting
date; and

3. the
adjusted balance, determined by adding outstanding deposits and other credits
to the balance in the financial institution’s monthly statement and subtracting
outstanding checks and other deductions from the balance in the monthly
statement.

[6] SCR
20:1.15(b), as in effect prior to July 1, 2004, provided in pertinent part:"[A] lawyer shall promptly deliver to
the client or third person any funds or other property that the client or third
person is entitled to receive...."

[7] SCR
20:1.15(d)(1) (effective July 1, 2004) provides in pertinent part:"[T]he lawyer shall promptly deliver to
the client or 3rd party any funds or other property that the client or 3rd
party is entitled to receive."

[8] SCR
20:1.15(b)(3) provides:"No funds
belonging to the lawyer or law firm, except funds reasonably sufficient to pay
monthly account service charges, may be deposited or retained in a trust
account."

[9] SCR
20:1.15(d)(2) provides:"Upon final
distribution of any trust property or upon request by the client or a 3rd party
having an ownership interest in the property, the lawyer shall promptly render
a full written accounting regarding the property."

[10] SCR
20:3.3(a)(1), as it was in effect in 2006, provided that a lawyer shall not
knowingly "make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal;...."

[11] SCR
20:3.3(a)(1) (effective July 1, 2007) provides that a lawyer shall not
knowingly "make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal or fail to
correct a false statement of material fact or law previously made to the
tribunal by the lawyer;...."

[12] SCR
20:3.4(c) states a lawyer shall not knowingly "disobey an obligation under
the rules of a tribunal, except for an open refusal based on an assertion that
no valid obligation exists;...."

Upon
termination of representation, a lawyer shall take steps to the extent
reasonably practicable to protect a client’s interests, such as giving
reasonable notice to the client, allowing time for employment of other counsel,
surrendering papers and property to which the client is entitled and refunding
any advance payment of fee or expense that has not been earned or incurred.The lawyer may retain papers relating to the
client to the extent permitted by other law.

[14] SCR
20:8.4(c) states it is professional misconduct for a lawyer to "engage in
conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation."

Upon
commencing an investigation, the director shall notify the respondent of the
matter being investigated unless in the opinion of the director the
investigation of the matter requires otherwise. The respondent shall fully and fairly disclose
all facts and circumstances pertaining to the alleged misconduct within 20 days
after being served by ordinary mail a request for a written response. The director may allow additional time to
respond. Following receipt of the
response, the director may conduct further investigation and may compel the
respondent to answer questions, furnish documents, and present any information
deemed relevant to the investigation.

[16] SCR
20:8.4(h) states it is professional misconduct for a lawyer to "fail to
cooperate in the investigation of a grievance filed with the office of lawyer
regulation as required by SCR 21.15(4), SCR 22.001(9)(b), SCR 22.03(2),
SCR 22.03(6), or SCR 22.04(1);...."

[17] SCR
22.03(6) provides as follows:"In
the course of the investigation, the respondent’s wilful failure to provide
relevant information, to answer questions fully, or to furnish documents and
the respondent’s misrepresentation in a disclosure are misconduct, regardless
of the merits of the matters asserted in the grievance."

All
trust account records have public aspects related to a lawyer’s fitness to
practice.Upon request of the office of
lawyer regulation, or upon direction of the supreme court, the records shall be
submitted to the office of lawyer regulation for its inspection, audit, use,
and evidence under any conditions to protect the privilege of clients that the
court may provide.The records, or an
audit of the records, shall be produced at any disciplinary proceeding
involving the lawyer, whenever material.Failure to produce the records constitutes unprofessional conduct and grounds
for disciplinary action.

[19]We note that the
referee's report lists this figure as $14,953.98.This $10 discrepancy appears to be a
typographical error, as the parties stipulated to restitution of $14,943.98 for
the Estate of A.H.